In a November 4, 2011, decision by Justice Grays, the court granted defendant/third-party plaintiff’s and third-party defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and third-party complaint. Plaintiff-construction worker was injured on the job and sued defendant-homeowner to recover damages for his injuries. In turn, defendant-homeowner sued third-party defendant-insurers for defense and indemnification under their respective general liability policies. The insurers moved for summary judgment on grounds that defendant-homeowner failed to give timely notice of the lawsuits and that plaintiff’s injury was not covered under the policy. The court granted the insurer’s motions, finding that defendant-homeowner failed to comply with the condition precedent of notice under the policies and that the plain meaning of the language excluding plaintiff as a particular class of employee was dispositive. The court also granted defendant-homeowner’s own motion for summary judgment, finding that as an owner of a single-family dwelling who did not supervise, direct, or control the work of plaintiff, defendant-homeowner was entitled to the protection of the homeowner’s exemption under the Labor Law.
Carpio-Sanchez v Nakamura, Sup Ct, Queens County, November 4, 2011, Grays, J., Index No. 7901/2009